I understand that they did at one time but it didn't go over well. Which doesn't make any practical or aesthetic sense, since it is considered the golden ratio.

The "Golden Ratio" (aka as the Golden Mean) is actually approximately 1:1.618 ..., not 1.5:1.

Paper sizes are imbued with a lot of history, and vary with location - e.g. 12x16 is common in the UK.

Matt

“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

5x7 is close enough. Besides, the automated printers are using paper in rolls. Saunders once made
an 8X10 easel with the frame cropped down to 35mm proportions. Seems silly to me, since most of
us want to crop more precisely to whatever, not just to the fixed ratio.

5x7 is close enough. Besides, the automated printers are using paper in rolls. Saunders once made
an 8X10 easel with the frame cropped down to 35mm proportions. Seems silly to me, since most of
us want to crop more precisely to whatever, not just to the fixed ratio.

Paper sizes have always been a bit messy. 5x7 is often not close enough to a 2:3 ratio which is why many pro labs and all modern automated printers like Frontiers and Noritsus can make 5x7.5 prints to get closer to that ratio. These machines can also make 6x9 prints instead of 6x8 which itself is an odd size derived from the old full plate 6.5x8.5 (I think Ilford still make full plate paper). The machines can also do 5.5x7 that is close to 4:5 ratio. To cap it all off, inkjet paper is largely made in office paper sizes like A4 and new sizes like A3+ have been introduced in that market. OzJohn